Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[Nessie]

Then that means vetoing lawful decisions one would like to do because of the threat of unlawful violence. That legitimizes violence as an acceptable path to influence representative government.

Nothing is being vetoed. It is at present, a consideration to take into account. The UK government and EU may decide after all that there has to be a hard border and if that results in violence, so be it.

At present, the EU is keener to avoid that hard border than the UK government is. You would think that it would be the other way around.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Nothing is being vetoed. It is at present, a consideration to take into account. The UK government and EU may decide after all that there has to be a hard border and if that results in violence, so be it.

At present, the EU is keener to avoid that hard border than the UK government is. You would think that it would be the other way around.

If you decide it isn't worth the violence, that is vetoing a decision because of unlawful violence.

 

[Nessie]

If you decide it isn't worth the violence, that is vetoing a decision because of unlawful violence.

If you decide that it is worth the violence, that is vetoing those whose lives are about to be made a misery.

It is not unreasonable to make a policy decision based on avoiding conflict, even if that to an extent justifies the use of conflict as a means to influence policy.

 

[Darat]

The end of The Troubles was

- the army leaving
- Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness agreeing to cooperate and getting on amazingly well
- no more bombs in public places on the scale of Omagh in 1989
- no more attacks in the UK mainland
- no more paramilitary attempts to buy large scale weapons from abroad (which had pretty much stopped anyway)

But still bombs and other violence in NI.

 

[Darat]

Twenty-odd years of listening to the grandfathers, fathers, uncles, etc. banging on about whatever they got up to before the GFA, whether that was full-on paramilitary activity, or just the fun of lobbing petrol bombs at the RUC/army of a Friday night. If just one in a hundred of the young ones think "that must have been great," it's a potential problem if things kick off again.

Have a check, the terrorism hasn't stopped. But for some reason why say a prison officer is killed by a bomb it hardly makes the news. As an example: https://www.irishnews.com/news/nort...er-adrian-ismay-murder-goe-son-trial-1453027/

 

[BobTheCoward]

If you decide that it is worth the violence, that is vetoing those whose lives are about to be made a misery.

It is not unreasonable to make a policy decision based on avoiding conflict, even if that to an extent justifies the use of conflict as a means to influence policy.

Or it is unreasonable to do that.

 

[ceptimus]

The EU want the border to stay open.

The Irish (north and south) want the border to stay open.

The British want the border to stay open.

The real question then is: who on earth is going to close the border, and why?

I suppose you think the EU will reluctantly close the border to preserve the purity of their market, even though they don't really want to, and it will be bitterly opposed by the Irish?

When the overwhelming majority of people want something to happen, why would they then prevent it from happening? That really would be politics gone mad.

If "the rules" mean that you can't do what everyone wants, then it's time to change the rules: these are rules invented by politicians - they're not laws of physics.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The EU want the border to stay open.

The Irish (north and south) want the border to stay open.

The British want the border to stay open.

The real question then is who on earth is going to close the border, and why?

I suppose you think the EU will reluctantly close the border to preserve the purity of their market, even though they don't really want to, and it will be bitterly opposed by the Irish?

When the overwhelming majority of people want something to happen, why would they then prevent it from happening? That really would be politics gone mad.

Who is this directed to?

 

[Nessie]

Or it is unreasonable to do that.

At the moment, we do not know what will happen and if the risk of violence will be ignored or not.

One thing is for sure, the risk of returning violence is not the only consideration, the EU has stated that there has to be a border if the UK leaves the customs union, there is no compromise on that.

If there is a way to do that without reigniting the Troubles, then the EU is prepared to compromise, which is what the back stop was.

Your attempt to portray the terrorists as the determining factor and power holders in Brexit is an utter fail.

 

[BobTheCoward]

At the moment, we do not know what will happen and if the risk of violence will be ignored or not.

One thing is for sure, the risk of returning violence is not the only consideration, the EU has stated that there has to be a border if the UK leaves the customs union, there is no compromise on that.

If there is a way to do that without reigniting the Troubles, then the EU is prepared to compromise, which is what the back stop was.

Your attempt to portray the terrorists as the determining factor and power holders in Brexit is an utter fail.

It is a good thing that I wasn't portraying it that way. I was responding to all the posts about the resumption of terrorism and the implication if that was the reason.

 

[Nessie]

The EU want the border to stay open.

I think it is more accurate to say the EU wants the UK to stay in the customs union.

The Irish (north and south) want the border to stay open.

The British want the border to stay open.

The Brexiteers want out the customs union, which means a hard border.

The real question then is: who on earth is going to close the border, and why?

I suppose you think the EU will reluctantly close the border to preserve the purity of their market, even though they don't really want to, and it will be bitterly opposed by the Irish?

When the overwhelming majority of people want something to happen, why would they then prevent it from happening? That really would be politics gone mad.

If "the rules" mean that you can't do what everyone wants, then it's time to change the rules: these are rules invented by politicians - they're not laws of physics.

The compromise was the backstop. That has failed and as yet, we do not know what will happen.

I suspect if the UK leaves with no deal and no backstop, to preserve the customs union, the EU could act as if Ireland had also left and all goods to and from Ireland from mainland Europe would be subject to checks.

 

[ceptimus]

Who is this directed to?

Everybody.

 

[Nessie]

It is a good thing that I wasn't portraying it that way. I was responding to all the posts about the resumption of terrorism and the implication if that was the reason.

You made it clear you think that if what the terrorists may do is part of the final decision, then the terrorists have legitimised their use of violence.

Which is rubbish, since no part of The Troubles was about a customs union and the issue is over border checks, which to Nationalists has significant symbolism and makes a united Ireland less likely.

It is a problem of an unintended consequence of leaving the customs union. Leaving the customs union is not worth reigniting the violence.

 

[ceptimus]

I think it is more accurate to say the EU wants the UK to stay in the customs union.



The Brexiteers want out the customs union, which means a hard border.



The compromise was the backstop. That has failed and as yet, we do not know what will happen.

I suspect if the UK leaves with no deal and no backstop, to preserve the customs union, the EU could act as if Ireland had also left and all goods to and from Ireland from mainland Europe would be subject to checks.

You're assuming that politician-invented rules are unchangeable. They're not. The politicians could alter the rules, in principle, to say, "These rules apply everywhere, except in the special case of the Irish border"

I'm sure they'd come up with a much more long-winded inpenetrable way of saying the same thing, but that's the essence of it.

 

[lomiller]

They are telling a domestic violence victim not to do something because their partner will hurt them.

You are being ridiculous. A better analogy would be to say the UK is threatening to put itself in a position where it will be the target of violence unless its demands are met. The EU is rightly answering that the UK threatening to put itself in harms way isn’t a very good reason for the EU to grant concessions.

 

[Nessie]

You're assuming that politician-invented rules are unchangeable. They're not. The politicians could alter the rules, in principle, to say, "These rules apply everywhere, except in the special case of the Irish border"

I'm sure they'd come up with a much more long-winded inpenetrable way of saying the same thing, but that's the essence of it.

That has already happened with the backstop. EU could also in effect exclude both Ireland and the UK from the customs union by having a backstop in the English Channel.

Or, the EU could check all goods going to and from Ireland and only apply tariffs where the goods are going to and from NI.

 

[lomiller]

The EU want the border to stay open.

The Irish (north and south) want the border to stay open.

The British want the border to stay open.

The real question then is: who on earth is going to close the border, and why?

We’ve told you that many times. There is no practice way to keep the border the border open while having different trade, tariffs, customs, product standards, and travel rules on each side of the border.

The EU is competent and recognises this. It will therefor make plans to implement border controls on their side. The UK government is not competent, and has no such plans. Unless it wants to go down the failed state road where everyone just ignores whatever the laws, rules and agreements the UK makes, it will need to put up it’s own border eventually as well.

I suppose you think the EU will reluctantly close the border to preserve the purity of their market, even though they don't really want to, and it will be bitterly opposed by the Irish?

Ireland may not want a border, but if the alternative if to place itself at the mercy of UK laws you can bet they will have one.

 

[catsmate]

I see Bob has found a new thread to totally disrupt.

There is a reason for the Ignore function.

 

[abaddon]

The EU want the border to stay open.

The Irish (north and south) want the border to stay open.

Sure.

The British want the border to stay open.

The Brexit campaign was lying about taking back control of it's borders, then? Is that your claim?

The real question then is: who on earth is going to close the border, and why?

Britain will have to do it, otherwise they have not taken back control of their borders and illegals will all flood in from that route. Think Ireland will stop those illegals? Why should they? Once they cross into the UK it bcomes your problem. The French at Calais will be the very same. So long as they are leaving France it simply is not their problem.

I suppose you think the EU will reluctantly close the border to preserve the purity of their market, even though they don't really want to, and it will be bitterly opposed by the Irish?

Will it? The majority in the south, while harbouring a dim nostalgia for a united Ireland, are fully aware how toxic it is and want none of it. The UK is the same and doesn't really want it either. Hell, NI is not even part of Great Britain at all and has always been treated as such. A vassal state.

When the overwhelming majority of people want something to happen, why would they then prevent it from happening? That really would be politics gone mad.

Nope. That would be people recognising that what they want may not be in their best interest. Historically, the UK is rubbish at that kind of self-restraint of impulse.

If "the rules" mean that you can't do what everyone wants, then it's time to change the rules: these are rules invented by politicians - they're not laws of physics.

No, that is not how anything works.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You are being ridiculous. A better analogy would be to say the UK is threatening to put itself in a position where it will be the target of violence unless its demands are met. The EU is rightly answering that the UK threatening to put itself in harms way isn’t a very good reason for the EU to grant concessions.

"put itself in a position where it will be the target of violence" is the argument behind, "she shouldn't have dressed like that." It is victim blaming.